How to handle OWL typing constraints?

drdozer / oboformat

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/oboformat

0 stars 0 forks source link

How to handle OWL typing constraints? #6

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Typing_Constraints_of_OWL_2_
DL

Some of this boils down to some constrains on typedefs. For example, in a 
relation used as annotation property, a number of tags such as is_functional-BT 
don't make sense.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 3 Nov 2010 at 3:34

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago


One possibility is metamodeling. E.g.

Declaration(ObjectProperty(<http://x.org#p>))
FunctionalObjectProperty(<http://x.org#p>)
Declaration(AnnotationProperty(<http://x.org#p>))

is valid OWL-DL.

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 3 Nov 2010 at 11:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Each alone is valid. But you can't pun object properties and annotation 
properties. "No IRI I is declared in Ax as being of more than one type of 
property; that is, no I is declared in Ax to be both object and data, object 
and annotation, or data and annotation property."

Not sure what you mean by metamodeling.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 4 Nov 2010 at 4:57

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

metamodeling as in punning.

The above ontology is accepted by the owlapi and p4

Anyway, I've forgotten the context of the original issue. Is it just that the 
typing constraints should be inherited by obo-format? I think this is implicit, 
just as in

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-mapping-to-rdf/

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 16 Jun 2011 at 10:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:12

Changed state: Done
Added labels: Type-Specification
Removed labels: Type-Defect

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

They are not implicit. See 
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-mapping-to-rdf/#Analyzing_Declarations

The issue is that OBO allows syntactic forms that do not map to OWL-DL and 
there needs to be some story of what happens in such cases. Or, the syntax 
needs to be constrained so this is not possible. I favor the latter approach as 
it is easier.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:40

Changed state: Started